Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?
posted at 1:25 pm on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Last night, a number of people on Twitter pointed out that Mitt Romney didn’t get a majority of the Florida primary vote and claimed that combining the percentages of all other competitors showed that he could still be stopped. I pointed out earlier that this assumes everyone wouldn’t vote for Romney as a second choice, which polling shows to be false (he was second among second choices in Florida), but let’s put that aside for a moment. To whom should conservatives look as the consolidation candidate? After watching Newt Gingrich lose two debates and suffer a steep reversal of fortunes in Florida, some look to Rick Santorum, such as Andrew Malcolm, who wonders if Gingrich has worn out his welcome:
In an amazingly graceless non-concession concession speech after not phoning the victor out of common competitive courtesy, Gingrich chose to talk not about minor matters such as how he proposes to win the Nov. 6 national general election against $1 billion.
No. Instead, Gingrich described in great detail what all he is already planning to do and sign during his first day in the Oval Office, in between taking the presidential oath and numerous inaugural parties.
Seriously.
After a humiliating defeat, Gingrich spoke of a two-man race, assuming his own GOP nomination and general election victories. Big ideas? Try loony ideas. The guy is living in a parallel universe.
Now, Gingrich takes his campaign to Nevada, the state with the most foreclosures in the nation, where he has three days to explain what he did for that $1.6 million that mortgage giant Freddie Mac paid him.
Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard looks at the numbers ahead:
In Missouri, where the next Republican primary will take place (next Tuesday), a new poll by PPP shows Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points — 45 to 34 percent — while Ron Paul has 13 percent support. Newt Gingrich isn’t on the ballot in Missouri, so the Show Me State offers a prime opening for Santorum to build on his earlier victory in neighboring Iowa.
Perhaps even more encouraging for Santorum are the candidates’ respective favorability ratings among prospective primary voters in the state. Santorum’s net favorability rating is +42 percent (63 percent favorable to 21 percent unfavorable), compared to +10 percent for Romney (46 percent favorable to 36 percent unfavorable). (Paul’s net favorability rating is minus-29 percent — 28 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable.)
Those aren’t the only numbers that suggest that Santorum could stand up better to Romney than Gingrich. PPP polling in key upcoming states show that Santorum challenges Romney more strongly in Ohio as well as Missouri:
Rick Santorum is leading the way for next week’s ‘beauty contest’ primary in Missouri with 45% to 34% for Romney, and 13% for Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot for that, but he will be in the picture for Missouri’s caucus and leads the way for that with 30% to 28% for Santorum, 24% for Romney, and 11% for Paul.
In Ohio Gingrich is at 26% to 25% for Romney, 22% for Santorum, and 11% for Paul.
What might be most interesting in both states is what happens in a head to head between Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum:
-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.
-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.
Two takeaways from those numbers: if this ever came down to Romney, Paul, and just one out of Gingrich and Santorum, Romney would be in a lot of trouble. And he’d be in more trouble if the single conservative alternative ended up being Santorum.
It’s not just the numbers, either. The debates in Florida last week showed that Gingrich’s claim to mastery of the format simply don’t hold up. He lost both of those debates, and spent the rest of the week attacking Romney on religious freedom and proposing a lunar base that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in an era where Republicans are arguing for reduced spending. If Gingrich was actually making the conservative case against Romney, I could see Sarah Palin’s point, but he’s not. He’s making a case for “big ideas” that involve a huge amount of spending, attacking Romney on any basis that happens to be handy, and he’s attacking the media.
The candidate actually making the conservative case on the campaign trail is Rick Santorum. Santorum scored points off of Romney in both Florida debates, especially the last one, because Santorum hasn’t ever backed an individual mandate as a health-care solution and doesn’t have to defend that position. He’s never backed TARP, either. That doesn’t make Santorum a perfect conservative candidate, but he seems to be the only one who’s focusing on the actual conservative agenda. Even if the motivation is to back a conservative alternative to Romney to “sharpen his steel” and force him to follow the conservative agenda, it’s Santorum who is most effective at making that the agenda.
Plus, there is one more thing to consider, and that is the quality of leadership. Both of the frontrunners and their allies have engaged in disappointing attacks on free market enterprise in an attempt to exploit each others’ weaknesses, but Santorum has refrained from doing so, even though he has specifically targeted blue-collar voters who might respond to those attacks. Santorum has maintained a high level of integrity in his campaigning, and that’s something to consider when choosing the man who will represent the party in the 2012 elections.
Santorum also has a new ad out today, “Deal,” which targets Gingrich. It’s running in Nevada and Colorado this week:











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Some of you “conservatives” must actually like Obama and want him to win. There is no other explanation.
jazzmo on February 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Since nobody else took you up on it….
He seems to means it when he says things like:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”
“We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”
“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. ”
All of those quotes go beyond the gay issues that he’s famous and Google bombed for and into the realm of genuinely creepy.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM
I provided a YouTube video of Freedom Watch on Fox Business, which played the audio of the relevant portion of the interview where Santorum differentiated traditional conservatism and support for low taxes and less regulation. So, for the final time, if you have any interest in actually arguing your point:
Under what context was Santorum referring to those who support lower taxes and less regulation?
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM
meansmeanBad editing on cut-n-paste, sorry.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Amen. This is also right in line of my thinking. We keep accepting this crap, they will keep shoveling. We in the end, will be forced to act against our own self interests to knock this s*&t off. This is no different than going to war. It’s not in your short term best interests. In fact, you might fail completely, leaving the situation truly f*&^%d.
But there is a tipping point, where the chain of abuses and usurpation have just become too much to tolerate “the lesser of two evils” anymore.
For MANY OF US – Mitt Romney is the poster child for that tipping point.
SilverDeth on February 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM
What? Where? You don’t mean “burning in the bosom”…hey sorry, I didn’t know you were a Pentacostal Christian…no offense, I think it’s fine, along with speaking in the tongues if that’s your gig.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 4:41 PM
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Yes, in addition to a list of other things. All of which taken together spell Libertarian, who are clearly not Traditional Conservatives being Socially Liberal in many cases. Santorum has made this point a number of times in debates dealing with Ron Paul.
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM
How many pages of google search results did you have to go through to get to a non-Mormon reference?
5? 6?
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM
I don’t find anything “creepy” about those comments. For the most part I agree with them. There is no constitutional right to contraception, sodomy or, in general, privacy. The real issue here is not the moral viewpoint, but where responsibility for such issues belong. While Santorum is currently my pick, I am uncomfortable with this approach of his. Not because I disagree with him, but because these issues do not belong at the federal level.
My hope is that he understands his only real power over such issues as president is to nominate judges who will put the ism back in federalism.
NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM
If Santorum got out, Romney’s margin of victory would just increase. Every poll done shows that the majority of Santorum voters would choose Romney. Newt’s supporters, however, would choose Santorum over Romney. Also, in a head to head matchup, Santorum beats Romney by much larger numbers and in more states than Newt does.
The math is the math. Now where did I hear that before?
fight like a girl on February 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM
It is getting rather OBVIOUS that right2bright is a moron.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Yes, but nearly all conservatives, traditional or otherwise, are anti-tax and anti-regulation. It’s not something we somehow “stole” from the libertarian movement. It’s part of the concept of fiscal conservatism, going back decades. To go out of his way to include it in his collection of what traditional conservatives “are not about”, particularly when he was part of the spend-happy GOP congress of the last decade, is a giant red flag regarding his attitude about the size and scope of government, particularly regarding spending and regulation. I’m not sure how one can argue otherwise.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Yeah, but how else do you sharpen a blade except by honing it on a blunt object?
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Even Newt Gingrich understands you support the nominee in order to remove Obama. Some of his supporters though just can’t figure that out.
jazzmo on February 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Santorum is not just the logical conservative choice, he is the only conservative choice.
fight like a girl on February 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM
What’s getting obvious is MadCon thinks he’s made some sort of point by picking one line out of a whole statement.
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM
Thanks, but he won’t relent…he will read what he wants to read into what the total context of what Rick was talking about…Rick led off with. When extremists on the right go so far as the hold hands with the extremists on the left (or similar) than Rick, after that stated premise, that “forward”, the “preamble” to the rest of what he states, most would see that as talking about extreme examples…less regulation, could be allowing prostitutes to set up business wherever they want…most conservatives don’t want that.
But logic won’t matter to someone with a “mission”…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 4:51 PM
If one must become the monster to beat the monster, then what was the point of even resisting in the first place?
Party over principle does seem to have become the mantra of the day. And they wonder why most of the nation can’t even be bothered to show up and vote.
SilverDeth on February 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Good try pal, but MadCon and I have done this for years…he doesn’t need your goofy help to put me in my place.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM
I don’t think they really support Newt… so much as they are Non-Romney. Some of them will jump from Newt to Santorum…. and then to Obama just because they hate Romney.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM
What’s getting obvious is that some people who like Santorum don’t have any interest in the fact that the line I’ve oft referenced is one continuous statement made by Santorum, as evidenced in the audio that you clearly don’t want to hear.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM
What the hell ever happened “Executive Experience”. One cycle of a clueless community organizer, and now anyone is considered viable?
Anyone with any management experience sees where Odopey has been a blundering novice with minimal improvement given 3 years OJT.
.
Enough career politician corruption “leadership” already. Change DC from the outside. Or keep it just the way it is.
FlaMurph on February 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM
In what way is “lower taxes” an extreme example? Oh, that’s right, you haven’t the balls to answer.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM
It’s not a collection of things he’s against. It’s a set of things, taken together, to describe a certain subset of conservatism. A subset he does not belong to and wishes to make clear he doesn’t.
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about…you mean you are not Pentacostal?
I think you may be a little too sensitive…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM
I don’t know, but it seems to me that a Mormon in the White House is better than a Muslim.
Simple.
jazzmo on February 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM
Wait…did you actually say this? Jesus Christ on a cracker. So Rick Santorum mentioned “less regulation” solely referencing the regulation of an industry…that is entirely illegal.
Does logic merely bounce off you like a superball?
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM
“PLEASE, br’er fox, don’t throw me into that briar patch!”
Please. Would you pay the slightest heed to any opinion of a conservative when nominating your
socialist(I mean) democrat party candidates? Neither does anything you say have the slightest relevance to conservatives.FWIW, I’ll stack anything “fringe social right” Santorum might have ever said up against “don’t want her to be punished with a baby” or fighting against the Born Alive Infant Act — ANY. DAY. OF. THE. WEEK. So please, bring it on.
RegularJoe on February 1, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Very true.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 4:56 PM
A collection of things which he says is “not how traditional conservatives view the world”…which includes lower taxes.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM
You don’t have to play stupid. You are stupid.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM
I’ve made my point. If some people wish to believe otherwise, that’s up to them. Support Santorum. Just don’t cry to me when he turns into Bush III and drives us further into debt, and barks at those who call for low taxes and lower regulation.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM
You appear to be persisting in your argument that Santorum was taken out of context in Madison Conservatives quote, and that there is only this one item to be dealt with and then he’s hunky-dory. But as ElectricPhase and others have pointed out, there are literally hundreds of examples where he goes over the line and indicates that his primary interest is in legislating a puritanical morality, not in reducing the power of government. In fact, he won’t shut up about it. Sorry…America is just not going to elect the Church Lady in a sweater vest.
HTL on February 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM
I think I saw an atheists need not apply sign. Actually my sarcastic remark is not much different than the gibberish one finds in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject.
Annar on February 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Some extreme liberatarians want to totally eliminate the federal highway tax on gasoline, making each state pay it’s own…most would be against that, since most conservatives would understand the value of an interstate system that is cohesive…that’s one example.
Maybe some would want to not to pay taxes for public parks, public launch ramps, bridges, etc.
But he didn’t say don’t lower entitlements, gov. programs that are not necessary…it was a vague statement relating to extremists…
I think we have beaten this to death.
And Gunlock Bill is getting jealous of you taking my attention away from him…and I don’t want to disappoint him, he might be someone important in the future.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM
I have heard it a number of times. He has said as much at the debates.
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Maybe he can run with O’Donnell against the twin evils of sodomy and masturbation?
EddieC on February 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM
I don’t like most of his talking points but I agree that the supreme court has no business taking up sodomy laws. We do have standard(no incest) that we enforce beyond the bedroom door. If someone got prosecuted for some archaic sodomy law still on the state books then I’m sure it would be quickly overturned by the sate courts. Stop pretending like we are on the cusp of some repressive government interference in our sex lives. I’m not seeing it.Also, I’m not seeing the country accepting any limits on our porn intake. No way no how does Santorum support any specific law and no way will he push for a sodomy ban any time in his career.
THe youngsters won’t know this but Gore and his wife used to try and have the feds stop the sale of songs with offensive lyrics. Now that was real action and no one remembers it and no one ran against him on it.
My challenge still stands. How will Santorum get gov iton your bedroom?
BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM
So when Santorum was talking about lower taxes, he was talking about lower taxes that most conservatives are against(which you could count on one hand and have finger left), and when he was talking about less regulation, he was talking about regulations that conservatives favor(same scenario). Seems like a pointless statement, then, if he was really being THAT exclusionary.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Yeah, the Trinity is tricky, if one is a believer in God, one must assume He has no limits…and if one believes in God, you must assume you will never know what He knows…but we still try to figure it out, and if we can’t, some rely on faith, others just give up and move on. It’s called free will…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Apparently, some are ok with the FED Gov getting involved with religion, as long as it is their religion doing the dictating.
That might be why they are afraid of a Mormon in the White House. They project on to him what they would do if they were there, ie. push their religion.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM
He is describing a set of people who issues include “lower taxes”, among other things which he also lists. NOT a list a things he is against. His economic plan specifically calls for lower taxes. So clearly he isn’t against them is he? This is not some obscure statement he made on radio someplace. This is a standard thing he says when address by Paul supporters and even Ron Paul himself at the debates.
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Sorry, but we’re not on the same team here. While there is no constitutional right to privacy, there probably should be. These issues do not belong at the federal level or the state level. They are not the province of government.
…and just to be clear, this isn’t about gays. It’s about freedom.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Only because you added the word “most”, and I was giving my examples not his…you once again took it out of context. It was me giving you an example you had asked me for…and I did, and of course whatever I have you, you would not accept…I knew that.
That is why I said “You win”, under your definition, you win…
It’s done, we beat it to death…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM
WHY must one ASSUME that?
Can He sin?
Can He create a rock so big He can’t lift it?
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM
ElectricPhase provided you with quotes. You essentially responded that no matter what Santorum says you refuse to believe that he will back his words with action. So what’s the point of your “challenge”?
EddieC on February 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM
In your mind…most of us don’t want an abortion supporter, gun law supporter, same sex marriage supporter, tax raiser, liberal appointer, TARP supporter, gov. increaser, in the White House…it doesn’t matter if he is Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, Mormon, Jew.
It’s because you can’t argue against those basic problems you have to reach for the “Mormon” card.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Since when does a politician list off a number of stances, some of which he is for, some he is against, and claims that all of them are not what “traditional conservatives”, or more specifically: himself, stand for?
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 5:10 PM
I actually like Santorum best of the three. He is a Catholic so there wil be issues with homosexuality and abortion but that’s the difference between liberals and the conservatives, isn’t it? At least its a clear choice.
magicbeans on February 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM
For realz, can ya get an Amen? Yes sir! Amen!
preallocated on February 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM
I really hope you’re a lawyer, because you’ve got the perfect attitude for an ambulance chaser. Either that, or Bill Burton’s replacement.
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM
These days, that seems to be the only difference.
EddieC on February 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM
You have to ask Him…I don’t speak for Him.
And quite frankly, I don’t judge Him, he judges me…that’s how it works as a Christian.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM
So, you know nothing about Romney then. I thought as much.
You obviously don’t know what “google” is either.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM
I am confused. You agree there is no constitutional right to privacy, and yet the states can’t make laws you feel invade your privacy? From a legally honest standpoint it is clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to make such laws, but not the states.
And don’t confuse understanding the constitution with support for such laws. I have no use for sodomy laws, but a state can still constitutionally impose one. Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas are all horrible SCOTUS rulings that invented and expanded on a constitutional right to privacy. Ultimately all the rulings do though are destroy federalism and limited government. My concern is not over having laws like these. My concern is over the states loosing their ability to function as outlined within the Constitution.
NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Awww, Madcon, you flatter me, you silver tongue poster…you are in the same category, I hope you realize that, just on different sides of the mirror.
You think you are right, I think I am right…it won’t be the last time.
Libertarians and Conservatives will battle this out for eternity.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM
I“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”,
Joseph Smith (Inventor of the Mormon Cult) from a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838.
Note that “the Aclcoran” is redundant since Al is the article “the” in Arabic.
Annar on February 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM
So you want the video so him supporting abortion? Restrictive gun laws? How about when he stated that what Obama did with Gov. takeovers, was the same as he did with Bain? Want that interview?
See the difference is, we have the videos of him actually stating that unequivocally.
But you don’t want them, you have seen them and it doesn’t matter because he is the same faith as you…so he has not other standard.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Can we stop with all the alternative stuff now? It’s Mitt. We’re stuck with it and we’re screwed, but it’s Mitt. End of story. No to Santorum, no to Newt. Too little too late in the easiest election for an organised and principled conservative to win in modern history. Santorum doesn’t have a chance. I wish he did, but it’s delusional to think so.
Enough. Stop now.
oldroy on February 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Best not to have any liberals or left moderates in the White House…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM
I’m a musician. Tipper Gore the censorship queen has not been forgotten. What you cite as an inconsequential case of government meddling in morality is part of the bedrock of my unyielding opposition to a pol like Santorum. Funny that.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM
Is he going to push for a specific law? Create a sex police unit?
But you are right, this is a problem for him.
BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM
This just goes to show how stupid you are.
A promise not to change the laws regarding abortion is NOT the same as supporting it.
That the NRA was supportive of.
But hey, to the fanatical purist nothing is acceptable.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Yeah. Santorum is out of the main stream on homosexuality. It’s a problem. I’ve been convinced.
BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 5:25 PM
All the time. Politicians do this all the time. It’s the standard way of differentiating a fringe group within your own party in an attempt to win over the majority. “Yes! They like X and X and X (sort of) but they also support Y, which isn’t us. We are XXX&X.”
Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 5:27 PM
If Santorum overtakes Romney, I’ll happily vote for him, but it’s up to him to raise money and build an organization before the primaries instead of just hoping to bootstrap a campaign out of nothing but driving around in a pickup and showing up for debates. Not with Newt in the field. He’s a much more effective demagogue.
flataffect on February 1, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Let me clear up the confusion. I would support and actively work for a constitutional amendment creating a right to privacy, in spite of the implications regarding abortion. Like you, I don’t want the courts to create one out of thin air.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Free will is also a tricky concept if the principal player, being omniscient, knew every outcome concerning you before you were born but you may burn in hell for what you do anyway.
To your list one might also ask if the omniscient, omnipotent god can change his (her, its) mind. If not , prayer would be useless.
Annar on February 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Try this…if you don’t think this is an advocate for pro-choice you are nuts.
Than to make sure, he appointed an abortion advocate to the board, and he made sure funding for abortion was state paid…a tri-fecta…but it doesn’t matter to you, you are blinded.
I have a similar one for the gun law…where he emphatically states he would not change on iota of a restrictive gun law…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM
You don’t mind if I stop for a gin & tonic after your posts do you?
Maybe God chooses not to know, like a child knowing there is a Christmas present, unwrapped, in the closet…does he peek or wait for the excitement of Christmas day…whatever we come up with will be limited by our meager understanding. We think of minutes, days, hours, we think of him/her/it, we think very basic thoughts, and try to put God into something we can comprehend…it it will fall short.
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Really don’t understand who the heck these people are supporting Gingrich? The guy is a low life.
Santorum is a solid conservative. And just as important, a decent human being.
therightwinger on February 1, 2012 at 5:38 PM
*sigh* I hope not.
One way or another, f**k Obama, dude. *gives the black power salute*
MadisonConservative on February 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM
You really ARE stupid. That is EXACTLY what I was talking about. He is making a promise not to change the law. He is not explaining HIS personal position on abortion.
Him explaining the current law in Mass, is NOT an explanation of HIS personal position.
Again, a PROMISE to not change the law, is NOT a statement of personal position.
But that may be too complicated for a moron like you to understand.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM
I don’t get it either.
Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM
He’s more conservative than either Newt or Romney He’s not as conservative fiscally as Paul, though Paul has his kooky foreign policy and some fairly liberal views to boot.
But on the key issues for this election, Santorum’s consistent positions on O’Care and it’s model, R’care beat Newt hands down. And whether he knew it when he got it passed or not, Romney knows now that O’care is a disaster for the country, despite its ongoing popularity in Mass. Newt said he favored the mandatory option as recently as 2009.
Newt also took money from Freddie and Fannie — a lot of money. They were not paying him to say, “shut us down”. Santorum has consistently sought to reign in these monsters.
The list goes on and on and on.
Santorum’s problem is he lost his own state and not by a little. If he couldn’t carry PA, can we expect him to win a national election that is this important?
EconomicNeocon on February 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM
Why is Santorum losing PA a big deal? Even Reagan barely won it. It’s a left leaning state. It’s not an economically conservative state.
therightwinger on February 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM
You gotta go back and watch those fantastic movie series with George Burns, “Oh, God!” – I guess there’s three or four. The script is always brilliant, with questions that we have all the time about God, and “God” in the movies answers them all.
The most recent one-should work for these days-is God asked a little schoolgirl of a way for people to get closer to God, an idea. Her friend came up with “Think God”. So on they went and wrote “Think God” all over the city. ALL OVER. Through God’s intercession, kids rallied with her and helped her out.
Of course, next is the adults, the parents, psychiatrists and so on. I won’t spoil the end-those that have seen these movies love how he shows up at the end and fixes everything.
ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM
I don’t vote based on personality. I agree that Santorum is a decent human being. Probably a lot better than me.
Two problems: 1) he would lose, and 2) like many TEA folks, I’m conservative-libertarian. Santorum is fundamentally incompatible with my inner libertarian.
ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM
Santorum is a loser. He’s not a free market, small government conservative. He’s a right wing Obama – a Pat Buchanan without the charm or brains. No way I could vote for him.
CatoRenasci on February 1, 2012 at 5:58 PM
There is no alternative. There is Mitt Romney. Love it, live it.
MJBrutus on February 1, 2012 at 6:04 PM
From the time he resigned from Congress (1999) until he decided he was running for President (2009), Newt Gingrich supported the global warming scam, cap and trade, amnesty, bailouts, individual mandates, Medicare D and Dede Scuzzafraza.
Can anyone remember ANY conservative policies he supported during that period?
bw222 on February 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM
I appreciate Rick Santorum’s conservative views, and he’s made a good showing in the debates. What I see as his biggest problem is that this isn’t going to be a social issues election, it’s an economic issues election. If Santorum was a viable candidate, he would have been doing a lot better – sadly, he comes off as Mike Huckabee without the humor and the charm. He just doesn’t connect with people when he’s campaigning, and it shows with his numbers.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem for Newt is in his exit polls; an outright majority of Republican women voted for Romney.
Looks like they haven’t forgiven the serial adultery the way he told them that they should. He’s probably calling them the same thing he’s calling his first two wives now.
Newt Gingrich – He Will Always Love America. Unless America Gets Cancer.
The Texas Hammer on February 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM
I think that’s a bunch of baloney. No one speaks for all supporters of a particular candidate.
Chudi is just brash with his support. Why should he care if it offends any of you deranged haters. No one bases their opinion of particular candidates on a few online comments posted by someone who supports the candidate. To suggest that we have to tread delicately so as not to offend other candidates’ supporters is just silly.
I am 100% for Romney. He is going to win in November, and I expect the Sarah Palin worshipers to vote for him and against Obama. Does that mean I am never going to speak the truth and express my opinion that Sarah Palin is an utter embarrassment who attracts dunderheads as supporters? No.
bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM
Yes. It is a subset that I’ve come to consider the greedy libertines. They are not conservative, and they have little in common with our Founding Fathers, though apparently they like to claim the founders were ‘radical individualists’. They weren’t. Heck…sodomy was punishable by death, so clearly, they weren’t radical individualists espousing an anything-goes-in-the-privacy-of-your-home mentality. We are a nation of God given rights and laws based upon Christian morality and that is what has made us the greatest civilization on earth. Now, the radical individualists want to throw that all out the window. Anarchy isn’t conducive to strong society.
And no, neither I, nor Santorum I’m sure, wants sodomy to be punishable by death…I’m merely making the point that his views are not somehow antithetical to the Founding Fathers as some like to suggest.
Santorum has consistently supported broad-based tax cuts and opposed tax increases either by sponsoring key legislation or by casting votes on relevant bills. Some high profile votes include:
• Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
• Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
• Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
• Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
• Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
• Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
• Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
• Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006
Santorum’s record on taxes is very strong. ~Club for Growth.
There are many quotes because reporters constantly ask him about his beliefs on social issues. He isn’t going to lie, (novel concept that that is, eh?) He has commented that he’s tired of being pigeonholed as a social con only. He wants to talk about economics, defense, etc…but the progressives in the media keep throwing the social stuff at him. Wonder why….
pannw on February 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM
I guess you missed the next 20 words or so, where he followed up by appointing an abortion advocate, you didn’t know that, sure you did. And then he made sure the state funded abortions, you knew that also, you are so coy.
A statement of support, along with appointments and bills to support, most people would take as a sign…so don’t get mad at me for pointing out what your brother did, it was he who made the appointments and presented and passed the bill…
It would be better and more honest for you to say “Yes, he supported state funded abortion, and made sure abortion advocates were represented, but he doesn’t believe that now”, at least that follows his new line…but it was a sweet story about his mom and his support of her, and her support of pro-choice, glad to see he is following in his moms…how about his dad, where his dad was brainwashed by Vietnam generals, do you think Mitt was brainwashed by Planned Parenthood generals?
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 6:48 PM
Nor does it mean that we won’t speak the truth about Mitt…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 6:50 PM
I missed that one…I love how Hollywood does it’s best to try to understand “God” or anything religious, it just cracks me up.
Like many other faiths trying to explain Christianity, or an atheist, it just makes me laugh, a joyful laugh.
Watching them flail around for arguments, pulling quotes out of context…it’s just fun to watch the naivete…
right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM
I will gladly vote for Rick Santorum on Super Tuesday in Oklahoma. As far as I am concerned Romney and Gingrich can go the way of the dodo bird with their nastiness we are seeing from both of them.
Gingrich is looney and with his pandering on the moon colony, he still lost the Space Coast in voting.
Think Santorum will do better in Middle America then either one of the arrogant candidates — Romney or Gingrich think he will. Actually dislike Newt more than Romney now which speaks volumes because I would have a hard time voting for Romney in the general. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for a Republican candidate.
PhiKapMom on February 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Whose up for a Big Government takeover of prescription drug industry to subsidize big Pharma and socialize Drugs for the elderly thats completely unfunded and as yet to be paid for by future generations of Americans? If that’s you, Vote Santorum!
Afterseven on February 1, 2012 at 7:29 PM
I could vote for Santorum without wondering if he was going to pull the ol’ switcheroo once he was in office (Romney) and without wondering if he was going to damage the Republican party with his ego or his wacky ideas (Gingrich). I could vote for Santorum without wondering if he was really pro-life (Romney) and without wondering if he was really a changed man who wouldn’t endanger the prestige of the office a la Bill Clinton (Gingrich).
But…under any other set of circumstances would I want him to be president? No.
He was unimpressive (and at times unlikable) for all but the last few debates; there’s a reason he was one of the last candidates to rise to the top. And his SOPA answer two or three debates ago troubled me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZifY8wcWwY . (I get the feeling he has been a legislator for so long that more legislation is his answer to everything.)
He might make a decent president, but it’s tough to judge that one way or the other since he has no executive experience. So he’s a bit of a gamble, as far as that’s concerned (although he’s less of a gamble in many respects than Romney or Gingrich).
But the real problem I see is how he would fare in the general. He might manage to keep all the conservative voters who now say they won’t vote for Romney or Gingrich (although…he hasn’t really been vetted yet or strongly attacked by Romney/Gingrich–surprises are still possible). But Obama will hold up Santorum’s SoCon cred as a huge liability–and I could see Dems/left-leaning Indies rallying behind an attack like that and turning the election into a we-must-stop-the-social-crusader-at-all-costs kind of battle.
Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with running a strong SoCon candidate. The problem with Santorum is that he has no other strengths. There’s no way to convince the Dems/Indies that it would be worth it to accept that “unappealing” aspect of him in exchange for how he could fix the economy, etc. So running Santorum as the nominee means a whole lot of defending his social stands and a whole lot of pointing out that he hasn’t wrecked an economy like Obama has. But as far as touting his record or executive abilities or even some personally appealing trait…we got nothin’.
So I’m still (still!) hoping for a brokered convention.
Brokered Convention 2012 Because, yes, all of the candidates really are that bad.
butterflies and puppies on February 1, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Libertarian-ish views of small government, are not socially liberally at all. Actually social liberals, and social conservatives, both share a similar view in an activist federal government, that is fighting a values battle. Social liberals/conservatives will of course different on those values, but in this respect, they are just different sides of the same coin of wanting a stronger moral nanny state.
Liberarians and actual traditional Republicans are for small government, and wanting as little interference in our lives as possible. How some of you equate small government and personal freedom, devoid of a nanny state, as being socially liberal, is a bit of a stretch.
And no, a nanny state of evangelical moral values, is not a tradition of the Republican Party, because that view came out of the Democratic Party. Social Conservatives did not exactly leave the Democratic Party over some new found love of individual freedom.
firepilot on February 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM
That’s a simplistic question. Santorum was arguing against “radical individualism” in the sense of refusing to have any moral laws because an individual should be free to do whatever they want, no matter the effect to society.
IOW, such things as allowing people to marry their dogs or their brothers, or take illegal drugs, and so forth. It’s a fairly straightforward argument about the difference between radical libertarianism and conservatism. Conservatives lean pretty close to libertarianism, but they accept that the government does have the right to set some standards.
And if you really think this is some new concept in this country, then I don’t know where you got that idea.
There’s no looming theocracy if you elect Santorum. That’s just nonsense. Most of those accusations do seem to keep coming from gay activists, or at least their sympathizers. (I include in that group those who are convinced for some reason that not being politically correct on gay issues will cost us the election. I don’t know how they come to that conclusion, but there seem to be some people who really believe it.)
So why are we worrying about this? I thought the current crisis was too big to get hung up on social issues.
tom on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Since he’s not a statist and not a theocrat, calling him a statist theocrat is kinda dumb.
I’m sorry, but this is no more than the old distinction between pure libertarianism and traditional conservatism. Santorum rejects the claim that the government should never regulate any kind of individual behavior, such as the use of illegal drugs. As did Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Ford, Nixon, and a whole host of people.
Social conservatives are not called that because they want to use the government to enforce their religious beliefs. They’re called social conservatives because they want the government to quit trying to enforce secular religious beliefs. When it comes to these issues, it’s always the left that is pushing for government action, and the right that wants the government to leave us alone.
tom on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Vote Rick!
Mycroft Holmes on February 1, 2012 at 11:53 PM
It’s a shame he lacks any projectable charisma. He is looking more and more like the “right” candidate. Alas, absent some serious luck somewhere he’s not in the running leaving a choice between Kerrying Sir Flip-Flop Romney and vindictive doesn’t know history as well as he thinks Gingrich.
I fear our civilization is suiciding on our watch.
{O.O}
herself on February 2, 2012 at 3:50 AM
Santorum obviously misses the “true conservative” category too, but he’s as close to it as you’ll find in the remaining field. My reservations about him are mainly his lack of executive experience. Everybody in Congress thinks they could be President, but most aren’t close to qualified.
There are good reasons we have so often elected Governors and Generals and so seldom Senators and Representatives. Leadership and management aren’t skills you learn on the job by starting at the top. Corporate executives have the skills, too – Romney, Cain, Cheney, Perot, Trump (not saying any had the right policies, just the necessary experience).
But anyone looking for the perfect candidate is bound to be disappointed. Words like RINO and Establishment fly around here like “racist” flies from the left. The only meaning these “devil terms” retain is that the person disagrees with you on some issue.
Gingrich never “worked with Reagan” but if most of the so-called “true conservatives here saw Reagan in another form as he was before he won, they would run him out of town as a RINO. A former Union President and Governor who had raised spending and taxes, signed a bill legalizing abortion before Roe v Wade, and used taxpayer funds to enter a number of “public-private partnerships” that are so inefficient.
Reagan hadn’t caught onto a lot of “Reaganomics” until he was already running for President, although he had always opposed federal spending and deficits. But that wouldn’t matter much with the other baggage – you throw people under the bus for lesser transgressions against your Purity Standard.
I’ve been in this fight since Goldwater, and it’s been mixed progress – but today conservatism is the mainstream where liberalism was the mainstream then. No it’s not your “pure” conservatism. But some of you must be horrible football fans, if the play you want isn’t called or the play loses yardage, do you walk out on your team in the middle of the game?
Adjoran on February 2, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Rick Santorum has a consistent record as being anti-tax and pro-entitlement reform, to include social security and welfare.
This angry Madison Conservative guy, who seems to hate Santorum more than the other candidates who are far more liberal, likes to tell us Santorum is a pro-tax statist and he throws in theocrat for good measure.
Club for Growth has said Santorum was the man on taxes. Who is more respected, Club for Growth, or Madison Conservative? Who is the nut engaged in mindless hyperbole that ignores Santorum’s record on taxes and other issues completely.
Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM
To me, referring to Christians as “Jesus freaks” is like referring to Muslims as a “ragheads”. This guy has called for me to be banned before for things that were not controversial or bigoted.
Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:07 AM
You seem to be unaware that people don’t like Romney either. Nobody thinks he is sincere, not even his SupreFans like Coulter and Rubin, even though they’ll fake it b/c they hate Newt Gingrich so much.
Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM
I think this notion that govenors automatically make great presidents has been disproven by Dubya and Clinton, along with others. Govenors deal with a lot of trivial issues, like waiting times at the DMV. Senators are immersed in significant national level issues including foreign policy and they are genreally prepared to be president than govenors are.
Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »